Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Questions about God... theists answer these!

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers.

1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

2. If Gen 3:24 is true, why hasn't anyone found the Cherubims and the " flaming sword which turned every way"?

3. It's been proven that modern humans originated from Africa. Yet, the Adam and Eve story claims the first Humans lived in a garden in Eden, near 4 rivers. ( Most of which no one can find). One of these rivers mentioned is the Euphrates, which runs through Iraq, Syria and a portion of Turkey. What's the truth? Did man come out of Africa or near the Euphrates River? - The Infidel Guy

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]

5. How can a God have emotions, i.e. jealousy, anger, sadness, love, etc., if he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent? Emotional states are reactionary for the most part. How can God react to us if he is all-knowing and has a divine plan? - IG [Note: Indeed, many religious texts display their gods this way . Listen to the An Emotional Godshow.]
6. Why would God create a place such as hell to torture sinners forever when he foreknew who would disappoint him? - IG [Note: Some say you have a choice, but this misses the point. If God hates sin so much, why create Adam and Eve when he knew they'd sin? The only conclusion I can come up with, if Yaweh exists, is that he wanted sin to enter the world.]

7. "God is all merciful," we hear quite often. Wouldn't it be more merciful of God to simply snap sinners out of existence rather than send them to hell? Or better yet, since he's all-knowing, not allow them to be born at all? - IG
ON GOD'S LOVE & HELL
1.) God's love is superlative.
2.) God's love of man exceeds man's love of self.
3.) Man's love of self prohibits torture.
4.) Considering God's greater love for us, Hell (eternal torture) is illogical.

8. Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. Each prayer includes a variety of ritualism and posturing. If a muslim astronaut were to land on Mars. Prayer to Mecca would be ritualistically impossible due to the rotation of Earth and Mars. Are Muslims stuck here in Earth? IG [Note: Since this was first posted, a Muslim astronaut was faced with this very dilemma. The authoritative clergy informed him to pray as he normally would. I see this no where in the Koran. You see? Religions must change, or die out. It's interesting to note that, in the Koran, the moon is believed to be in the lowest Heaven, the level for those that barely made it to Heaven. Surah 71:15-16. One problem, no man can supposedly get to Heaven until they die. Yet, we've been to the moon. Our satellites beyond that.]

9. Why haven't we seen God reattach severed heads, restore someone who was burned alive or regrow amputated limbs? Surely these would be miracles difficult to deny. - Adam Majors and IG [Note: The typical answer is that man doesn't dictate God's actions. The conundrum here however is that, if God wants us to "know" him, then surely feats such as those mentioned above would be happening all over the world. Until they do, I'll remain an atheist.]

10. Why does God entrust the spreading of 'His' word to sinners? Why doesn't he do it himself? - IG [Note: Surely God would have known that not everyone would be convinced by the reality[sic] of his Bible. If God loves us so much, we are all going to Heaven. If God knew that I would be an atheist, and he doesn't like atheists, he shouldn't have allowed me to come into existence. But he did. Therefore, I must be serving the will of God, for I exist. ]

11. In II Kings 2-23/24 we read about God sending 2 she-bears to attack children for calling the prophet Elisa bald, which he was, the bears killed 42 of the children. Was this a good thing to do? -- Brandon and IG[Note: I have heard some argue that the boys were a gang. So?! I didn't read anywhere in that passage where they laid a finger on the guy . Also, what kind of bears are these that can kill 42 kids? Super Bears? Surely the kids had to be running away.]

12. I have often heard from many believers that even Satan has a presence in the church, which is why even in church people can still have impure thoughts. If Satan can find his way in the church, how do Christians know that Satan didn't find his way into the Bible and twist the whole book? After all, men did vote on which books would make the Holy Bible. - The Infidel Guy

13. Why did God allow Lot and his daughters to escape from Sodom and Gomorra when he destroyed it only to later have Lot and his daughters engage in incestuous fornication. (Genesis 19:30-36) - Disillusioned [Note: To have intercourse with daddy dearest of course.]

14. Genesis 1:28-29 shows that man and all the animals were first created herbivorous. Most young-earth Christians (ones that believes the earth is less than 10,000 years old) say that the fall of man resulted in carnivorous animals ( hence death of animals). So, why did God punish the animal kingdom, making animals kill and devour each other because of man's mistake? Or, if you're an old-earth Christian (one that accepts that animals existed on earth for billions of years before man came on the scene) then how come fossils show carnivorous animals existed before man? - http://www.caseagainstfaith.com/contact.htm.

15. Many Christians believe that God is a thinking being, that he solves problems and makes a way for them when troubles come. Does God Think? If God is thinking, did he know his thoughts before he thought them? If so, again, where is his freewill and how is God thinking at all if everything seems to be one uncontrollable action/thoughts. - The Infidel Guy [Note: I'd say a God cannot think at all. To do so, would strip him of omniscience. Thinking is a temporal process.] ON GOD'S ATEMPORALITY
1.) God, an atemporal being, created the Universe.
2.) Creation is a temporal processes because X cannot cause Y to come into being unless X existed temporally prior to Y.
3.) If God existed prior to the creation of the Universe he is a temporal being.
4.) Since God is atemporal, God cannot be the creator the Universe.
[Note: I guess I should also note here that a timeless being would be without the proposition of past, and future. But to be omniscient, God must know the past and future. Hence a God that is atemporal and omniscient cannot logically exist. ]

16. I have often heard that faith is all that is neccessary to believe in God and accept the Bible as true. If this is true aren't all supernatural beliefs true since they also require "faith"? - IG ON FAITH
1.) A prerequisite to believe in a Faith is faith.
2.) Having faith is all that is required to accept a Faith (belief) as true.
3.) All Faiths are true.
[Note: Of course all Faiths aren`t true, but this is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from a person that states that, "Faith" is how one knows God.]

17. Why didn't God just kill Adam and Eve after the Fall and start from scratch? Actually, if God is all-knowing wouldn't he know that man would need to be killed eventually anyway, (the biblical flood)? Why create Adam and Eve at all? - and ON THE GARDEN OF EDEN
1.) God is omniscient (all-knowing).
2.) God knew that before he created man that they would eat of the tree of knowledge.
3.) God placed the tree of knowledge in the Garden anyway.
4.) God wanted sin to enter the world.
[Note: If God didn`t want sin to enter the world, why create Adam and Eve at all? He knew what would happen. Why place the forbidden trees in the Garden in the first place?]

18. If a spirit is non-physical but the human body is physical, how does a spirit stay in our bodies? - IG ON SPIRITS
1.) Spirits are not physical entities.
2.) Brains are physical entities.
3.) Past experiences are stored in our physical brains, we call that, Memory..
4.) Injury can damage portions of the physical brain that store memory and can alter or erase memories completely.
5.) If human spirits exist... after death, spirits can have no memory.
[Note: Some will say the spirit stores physical memories as well, but if true, the spirit would have to be physical at least to a degree. How could a non-physical spirit store, physical memories?]

19. Does God know his own future decisions? If God is all-knowing he actually shouldn't have any decisions to make at all. Nor can he choose anything over something else. For that would mean that he is neither omniscient nor omnipotent. In fact, he can't even think if this is the case. Since he can't DO anything, he might as well not exist. - IG ON GOD'S IMMUTABILITY - Unchangingness
1. If God exists, then he is immutable.
2. If God exists, then he is the creator of the universe.
3. An immutable being cannot at one time have an intention and then at a later time not have that intention.
4. For any being to create anything, prior to the creation he must have had the intention to create it, but at a later time, after the creation, no longer have the intention to create it.
5. Thus, it is impossible for an immutable being to have created anything (from 3 and 4).
6. Therefore, it is impossible for God to exist (from 1, 2, and 5) - Theodore M. Drange

20. If God is all-knowing, how could he be disappointed in His creation? -- [Note: Indeed, wouldn't God know that before the creation of our Universe what creatures would disappoint him? That being the case why create those creatures at all? Also, in knowing absolutely the behavior of humans before creation, God cannot be disappointed either... for this world is exactly as he has planned it to be. If it's not, why create us at all?]

21. God struck down the Tower of Babel angry at the intent of the people that built them, if this is the case, many of the great pyramids ( which are bigger than any ziggurat) around the world should be rubble also, yet many still stand today. Were not the Egyptians and many other ancient pyramid builders reaching toward God /The Heavens? - IG [Note: In actuality, many of the Pharaoh's believed that, via their pyramids, they would become God's themselves.]

22. In the watchmaker analogy, a watch is used to show us intelligent design and compares that to the Universe as evidence of design. We know watches are designed because we have past experience with watches, as well as with other man made objects. My question is: What Universe is the Intelligent Design proponent using to compare this Universe with to draw such an analogy? What God did he see create a Universe? - IG

23. Why did God flood the earth to remove evil? It didn't work! Evil came right back, God should have known that would happen! So why did He bother? - PhineasBg [Note: A good example of how quickly sin returned, was Noah getting drunk just after they discovered land.]

24. If the garden of Eden was a perfect paradise as xians claim, then why did Eve even want to eat the fruit? Wouldn't a perfect place provide everything a person would want or desire and thus she would want nothing? - keyser soze [Note: Why were the trees there in the first place? Of course they love to throw the serpent into the equation. But ummm..who let the serpent into the Garden?... and why would God create such a creature knowing he would cause man's fall? Hmm.. God must have wanted the fall to happen.]

25. Why would an all-powerful god become flesh in order to sacrifice himself to himself so that his creation might escape the wrath of himself. Couldn't god, in his infinite wisdom, come up with something a little more efficient? - ON THE BODY OF CHRIST
1.) God?s flesh was known as Jesus.
2.) Flesh cannot enter into Heaven (according to Paul)
3.) God is no longer Jesus.
4.) Jesus doesn?t exist.

(Note: Many at this point will state that the spirit lives on so therefore Jesus lives. This really depends on what you believe about Jesus. Is Jesus the son of God or God in flesh? If Jesus is merely the son there is no problem.However, if Jesus ?is? God himself, we do. You see, Jesus is called Jesus because of the attribute of Flesh. If Jesus = God (who is spirit) then the entity known as Jesus ceases to exist. The flesh/body of Jesus, no longer exists and the spirit of God is still the unchanging spirit of God. No Jesus at that point. The Flesh, called Jesus, is dead.)

26. After 9/11 a lot of people have been tossing around " god bless america". Why do they keep saying this? From the looks of it god hasn't blessed anything. If god had blessed america, the 9/11 event would've never happened. Theists seem to give the answer of "everything is part of gods big plan". If everything is part of gods big plan, why are we after Bin Laden? Wasn't he and other terrorists just carrying out gods desired plan? So it seems that Bin Laden/ terrorism isnt our enemy, but god . - [Note: Unfortunately many religious nuts believe they are fulfilling their God's plan by going to war.]

27. Christians say that God is NOT the author of confusion. Can you say, Tower of Babel? - The Screaming Monkeys

28. If Noah's flood supposedly covered the earth for a year, regardless of whether or not all the animals could fit on the ark, what the heck happened to all the plants? Can you imagine a cactus surviving under 4 miles of water for a year? I can't either! - Kyle Giblet [Note: With God all things are possible. Oh wait, except in Judges 1:19.]

29. The highest rainfall ever recorded in a 24 hour period was 47inches in the Reunion Islands in 1947 (during a severe tropical storm). To cover the whole earth to a depth of 5.6 miles, and cover the mountain tops (i.e. Mount Everest), it would need to rain at a rate of 372 (three hundred and seventy two) inches per hour, over the entire surface of the earth. Can rain fall at such an astronomical rate? Where did all the water come from?? Where did it all go to??? And would not the dynamics of the earth be so out of balance (tides etc.) that the earth would become so unstable that it would wobble off into outer space???? -

30. What do Muslim women get in Paradise? - IG [Note: Some Muslims I have interviewed about this say that Muslim women will get the same thing men get or equal value. Oh really? So Muslim women will get 72 virgin men? lol. If Muslim men get 72 virgins, where are all these virgin women coming from? What of their freewill? Is Allah creating these women to be slaves to the men in Paradise?]

31. In the "Last Days" Jesus is supposed to appear in the clouds. How are the Christians on the opposite end of the world going to see him? Are there going to be millions of Jesus'? What about people that work underground? What about people in deep space? -

32. The Bible says that God is a jealous God . How is this an example of a moral absolute of which man is supposed to follow? - IG ON GOD`S JEALOUSY
1.) "God is love." 1 John 4:8.
2.) "Love is not jealous." 1 Cor 13:4
3.) "I, the Lord thy God, am a jealous God." Exodus 20:5.
4.) The Christian god cannot logically exist.
(NOte: Basically love is NOT jealous, yet god is jealous, then God can`t be love. But if god IS love he cannot be jealous. Be he is.)

33. A true Muslim man is not supposed to do anything that the prophet Muhammad didn't do. If one remembers there was a big debate over whether or not Muslims should eat Mangos. If this is true, why in the Hell were these Islamic Fundamentalists flying airplanes? - IG

34. If the earth was covered by a complete global flood, every living creature killed except those surviving on the ark, why are there many completely unique animal species in Australia that are found no where else indigenously on the earth? -

35. If god is omniscient and " god is love," why would he allow a child to be conceived, knowing that that child would one day reject him and spend eternity burning in a lake of fire?- TiredTurkeyProd

36. Revelations is supposed to take place on Earth. What if we colonize the moon or Mars or inhabit a self-sustaining space station? Do we escape "judgement"? -- Ray Sommers [Note: No we don't Ray... and of course we all know that if there is any intelligent life out there besides us, they are all going to Hell too. ]

37. Isaiah 40:28 says, "...the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is he weary?" If this is true, why did God rest on the seventh day?- IG

38. Everytime I go to a funeral the preacher and guests always say that " God " has called that person to Heaven or they say, " God said it was time to come home", or some such variation. If God is calling these people "home", why are we putting the murderers of these victims in prison? How can we punish a man or woman for doing God's will? - IG

39. Does God have a gender? In most churches, God is predominately referred to as a "he"? - IG [Note: The Bible says God is male, but what does this mean? Does God have a penis? Does he have hormones that dictate his gender? ]

40. Why can't we wait until we get to Heaven to worship God ? Why would it be too late? - IG

41. What is the purpose of prayer? What can a finite being on Earth possibly tell an omnipotent, omniscient deity that he doesn't know already? - IG ON PRAYER
1.) Humans can?t change God?s mind for he has a divine plan and is unchangeable.
2.) Prayer can't change God's mind.
3.) Prayer doesn't change anything.
(Prayer may make you feel better emotionally, but it doesn`t change God`s mind.)

42. Some say Jesus was the all-knowing God. Jesus would have known then that when he died he'd be in heaven in less than 3 days to rule. If Jesus is alive and ruling today, what did he sacrifice? -- Cyndy Hammond

43. God knows that men are sinners, untrustworthy and evil, why does God leave it up to fallible man (clergy..etc) to teach others about his word? Why would he put our eternal souls at risk if he loves us so much? - The Infidel Guy and Danno778

44. Did Adam have nipples? If so, how did he acquire them? In fact, why would God give "later man" nipples at all? They serve no purpose other than lactation. Some say pleasure. Where is that in Genesis exactly? All mammals have nipples as well, are theirs pleasureful for them too? Many men don't find their nipples pleasurable at all. - IG

45. How did Adam and Eve know it was wrong to disobey God if they hadn't eaten of the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) yet? You can't blame them if they didn't know. - IG

46. If God has such a tremendous problem with uncircumcised penises, why did he make man with foreskin in the first place? - IG [Note: Some say, "So God can recognize his chosen people." Recognize? Is God so stupid that he has to physically look at men's penises? If not God, do other men need to? lol.]

47. Did Noah have fish onboard? Salt or Fresh? Since fresh water fish would die in salt, and salt water fish would die in fresh, only one type of fish would survive. Yet....?" - Frank Monaco

48. Why does the omnipotent, omnipresent God need help from man or angels to spread his word or do acts? - IG [Note: Some say God doesn't need help. But apparently he does.] - IG

49. How did Jesus ascend to Heaven in the Flesh when Paul says that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of Heaven? (1 Cor.15:50) - IG [Note: Some say, well Paul said that and not Jesus. Yet they quote Paul when it suits there purposes.]

50. If God wants us to live right and choose "the good," why did he create evil? (Isaiah 45:6,7) Not to mention he already knows which people are not going to choose "the good" so why create those people in the first place? It seems that many people are born to go to Hell. - IG ON HELL
1.) God is all-knowing.
2.) Before I was born God knew I wouldn?t believe in him.
3.) I was born to go to Hell.
(Sure you may say I have a choice, but I think I`ve proven already that I really don`t. I`m simply fulfilling the will of God by being an atheist aren`t I? If I`m not, I shouldn`t exist: For God would have known that before I was created that I wouldn`t believe in him.)

51. I hear Christians all the time speaking of a spiritual war between Heaven and Hell, if this is true does God have limitations of power? Man only conducts wars because of our limitations of power and foresight. God has both all-power and all-knowledge, no reason for war of any kind. - IG

52. The Bible is full of phrases beginning with, "and the lord saw". Didn't he know before hand? - IG

53. How can a psychologist condone belief in something not proven to exist, when people are put into mental institutions on a daily basis for the same thing? i.e. aliens, fairies, imaginary people (Multiple Personality Disorders..)? - Dan Denton [Note: I'm sure that some of the pious believe that they are improperly placed there as well Dan. ]

54. If Christians say they know God exists and that he will work miracles, what do they need faith for? Faith is not knowing. - IG

55. Brain, or shall I say, body transplants, will eventually be possible, where would the soul be then? Where is the soul? - IG

56. If God really wants us to know him, why doesn't he place the knowledge of him in our minds at birth? The same way many theists believe that God implants our sense of right and wrong in us a right birth. - IG

57. If God was Jesus' father (not Joseph), then why is Jesus' family tree traced through Joseph? -- Cyndy Hammond

58. What image of God was man made from? Couldn't have been a moral one or physical one. - IG [Note: One would suspect that an image of God would be perfect and cannot sin. Oops.]

59. Why can't God appear before everyone at the same time? Everyone in the world would then "know" he exists and not have solely "believe". And please, don't say he already tried that. Surely a God knows exactly what to do to convince a measly human of his existence. - IG

60. According to the New Testament Matthew 5:17 says "Do not suppose that I have come to abolish the Law and the prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to complete. I tell you this: so long as heaven and earth endure, not a letter, not a stroke, will disappear from the Law until all that must happen has Happened." So since Jesus has not returned the "Law" is still in effect, so why aren't we still burning witches, stoning adulterers and disobedient children, killing homosexuals, ostracizing people that work on the Sabbath (nurses, doctors etc.), flinging blood onto the horns of the alter, pulling off the heads of small birds, and don't forget human sacrifice to God (Leviticus 27 P.28 )? -- Sheila L. Chambers

61. If there is freewill in Heaven yet everyone has chosen good and is happy, isn't that proof that God could have made us with freewill, choosing good ( God ) and still being happy on Earth? - Dennis Hendrix [Note: In other words, evil didn't have to exist after all. Hey wait, even in Heaven apparently, evil can exist. At least for a short while. Satan became evil and was in heaven. Apparently he even had enough time to form an Army against God. Wow. Maybe Heaven won't be as peaceful as many believe.]

62. Why does God have a plan? Man is limited in power so we make plans because we are not all-knowing nor all-powerful. If God has a plan, isn't he reduced to a mere finite being? - IG

63. How could the all-merciful/loving God watch billions of his children burn over and over again for eternity? - IG [Note: Of course this is geared to those that believe in a fiery hell. I am well aware that not all Christians believe in a fiery Hell.]

64. Before reading and writing were invented (5000BC), on what basis did God use to judge the people who died before the Hebrew and Greek text (BIBLE) were written? -- [Note: They are all roasting in Hell. ]

65. Many Christians tell me that I will "burn in hell". If I have a soul, how can a soul burn? Aren't souls non-physical entities? - IG [Note: Some Christians groups believe that you will be given new bodies after judgement. However, if true, what's the significance of a spirit in the first place?]

66. How can one hold to the barbaric belief that something has to DIE in order to appease a god for a bad deed? -- Nickolaus Wing [Note: Because an old book says so Nick.]

67. Why does SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) occur? Why would God allow a baby to live for such a short period of time? Why not just let them not be born in the first place? -- Terry Clark [Note: This actually happened to a friend of mine. Not even God himself could console her.]

68. If Jesus was nailed and died on Friday evening, and walked out of the tomb on Sunday morning, where's the 3rd NIGHT he predicted? Per Matthew 12:40: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. -

69. Many Christians claim that hell is merely existence outside of God ?s presence (C.S. Lewis among others). If this is the case, then Jesus could not have descended into hell (being God Himself). As a result, are you sure your sins are forgiven? - Byron Bultsma

70. Ten to twenty percent of all women who discover they are pregnant suffer a miscarriage. Also, it is estimated that anywhere from 14 to 50 percent of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. Seeing this is all part of God 's plan, does this make God the world's number one abortion provider? - Jim

71. What if, when you get to Heaven, you saw God causing pain and suffering out of anger or for the purpose of entertaining himself. What if he required people in heaven to praise and worship him non-stop even to the point of causing his worshipers discomfort, pain and boredom. What if, when he was bored, angry, or jealous, he would create natural disasters to make himself feel better. Would you still follow him? - Fernando [Note: Of course they would Fernando, many people followed Hitler out of fear as well.]

72. In Leviticus, the bible condemns homosexuality as an "abomination", giving some Christians a reason to hate, harass, torture and kill gays and even picket their funderals with " God hates fags" signs. In the same book of the bible the eating of shellfish is equally an "abomination". Are these Christians planning to go after the patrons of Red Lobster next? - [Note: hee-hee, that's all I can say. Jewish Law states that eating Fish without scales is an abomination and thus the Shark is one among the list. However, sharks do have scales, Placoid scales, one of the many reasons why a shark is called a Fish .]

73. Christians will tell you that if a baby dies it goes to heaven. Why then are they so against abortion? All the child is being deprived of is the opportunity to go to hell. Either that or god expects unborn fetuses to accept Jesus. -

74. If one could prove to you incontrovertibly that Jesus and God were all human fabrications would still believe? And why? - LOGICnREASON [Note: If you say yes. Then you are not concerned with the truth, you simply WANT to believe; and if you WANT to believe, indeed, there is nothing anyone can tell you..]

75. It is often said that God allows evil because one could not meaningfully appreciate good without experiencing its opposite. Why is it necessary to experience the opposite of something in order to appreciate it? Must I experience death in order to meaningfully appreciate life? -excidius

76. Bible literalists want you to believe that God's Word in the Bible is meant to be taken literally. If this is the case, why was Jesus fond of explaining things in parable and metaphor? Was Jesus literally discussing the biology of mustard seeds, or was the mustard seed parable meant to be interpreted figuratively as faith? -excidius

77. Liberal Christians say some parts of the Bible are literally true, but much else is to be interpreted figuratively as allegory. How do you know which is which? What distinguishing criteria are used? How can you be certain "God" is a literal and not a figurative concept? -excidius

78. Consciousness is the result of a physical brain, how could God being metaphysical be said to be conscious or sentient without having a brain? - Mindless

79. Considering how Leviticus is considered old law, and that Christians do not obey it anymore, why do they always use it to defend homosexuality being an "abomination"? -Bohorquez

80. If God is omnipotent and he has a plan ... then why did he not create the universe as it will be one second after the plan has succeeded? Who or what prevented him from doing that? - Timothy Campbell (http://www.tc123.com)

81. The large majority of people who have ever existed could not have learned of the Bible or Jesus Christ. And many people afterwards have found other religions or no religion at all to be more convincing, sometimes while being very virtuous. Do all these people really deserve eternal torment because of that? -- lpetrich

82. The above arguments also apply among different sects of Christianity, many of which state that most others are not True Christianity. -- lpetrich

83. Is it reasonable for the Creator and Ruler of such a vast Universe to be preoccupied with the sexuality of a species living on a tiny little planet? -- lpetrich

84. If the Christian god was all loving and all knowing why did he let religious figures such as Mohammed or Gautama Budda be born, knowing that they would mislead people from the 'true' faith and trick the majority of the world's population into burning forever in hell (in fact, if Islam didn't start, most of the middle east would probably be Christian). It would simple to use the Holy Spirit to guide them to Jesus and spread the 'true' faith. If the Holy Spirit exits, it certainly isn't doing it's job!

85. If one is obliged to follow all the teachings of the bible then why is engaging in homosexuality or adultery any worse than "suffering a witch to live", "muzzling the ox that treadeth the corn", "reaping the corners of thy field", "marring the corners of they beard", "plowing with an oxen and an ass", "hating thy brother in thy heart" or "eating frogs, shellfish and eels" ?

86. Exactly how did the alleged worldwide flood kill off all the world's sea creatures? How does one go about drowning a fish? -- Steever

87. Why did this alleged god create humans as an animal form of life that gets sick and dies and experiences pain and has a limited mind when 'it' could have created humans as a form of pure energy or of some indestructible material or whatever, and was totally ?sinless? and had ?pure? thought? If a god was omnipotent 'it' could have easily have done this. --AI

88. If a god is omnipotent how did 'it' fail to foresee that Satan would turn against 'it'? --AI

89. What is a god supposedly made of? --AI

This list was compiled by the Infidel Guy with submissions from many members of the atheist community.

... in answer to your question I simply read the books of the Old testament, in addition I even provided you with scripture references that you could have easily checked yourself if you doubted my claims. Why are you insulting me for pointing out the obvious ? If you choose to reject your own scriptures as a source of historical record that's no reflection upon me.

"I found nothing grand in the history of the Jewsnor in the morals inculcated in the Pentateuch. I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of women." Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) pioneer in the fight for women's rights.

"Knowledge and history are the enemies of religion." Napoleon Bonaparte -"Maxims" (1769-1821)

Sorry to pop back in, but accusing me of relying upon faulty ( racist ) sources is bull shit . So much for any sense of good will between us. End of Rant.

"Okay, so could you kindly do that again?" No. It's already in this topic twice. Your failure to see it the second time, in combination with your refusal to act like a decent human being even after I made an effort to tone down my hostility, is mere proof that you're a troll. Find it yourself. "You really are helping me reach the conclusion that you're a troll and that this website would be much better off if perhaps you were banned from using it. Is there a moderator that could be contacted to help make that happen?" Don't be too surprised when I don't go anywhere, and you get banned for trolling.

In addition to being a troll, you're also a pathological liar.

All I've said, and all you've taken issue with, is my saying that I felt / think / believe that it would be better if the people engaging in these debates were able to read the texts in their original languages AND that they understood the religions they are debating.

That's it.

And you cannot, in any fair reading, distort that to mean I think ANYONE AT ALL is stupid, ignorant, etc. The FACT that several of the questions are based on distorted translations of source texts, as well as projections of the writers beliefs about what a deity that is "omnipotent" or "omnipresent" or most of the other projections is sufficient reason to state that as a desire on my part.

All you're doing is engaging in "trolling", in the classic sense -- you think that if you keep attacking me I'm just going to go away. And at some point, I may well do that. But it doesn't stop you from being a troll, and it most certainly doesn't mean this forum would be one hell of a lot better off if you were just plain banned. Or if you grew the hell up. Either way, I don't much care.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

"All I've said, and all you've taken issue with, is my saying that I felt / think / believe that it would be better if the people engaging in these debates were able to read the texts in their original languages AND that they understood the religions they are debating."

You implied that atheists don't understand the religions they argue against and didn't know how to read ancient texts. You've been proven wrong on both counts. This sad attempt at backtracking your words is failure.

"And you cannot, in any fair reading, distort that to mean I think ANYONE AT ALL is stupid, ignorant, etc."

A lie.

"The FACT that several of the questions are based on distorted translations of source texts, as well as projections of the writers beliefs about what a deity that is "omnipotent" or "omnipresent" or most of the other projections is sufficient reason to state that as a desire on my part."

Because you're a troll. I destroyed every argument I attacked, and your only response was a pathetic attempt to undermine my credibility, in which even your success would not stand as a refutation, but failed even harder because you couldn't even pull it off.

"you think that if you keep attacking me I'm just going to go away."

It might be nice, but I'll settle for pointing out your irrational arguments to piss you off instead, since you've not demonstrated any willingness to improve your arguments or self.

"And at some point, I may well do that."

Noone will miss you. But it would be nice if you'd at least demonstrate your claim that your religion and science are not in opposition first. We have another jew or two here, but they're atheists. You aren't.

"But it doesn't stop you from being a troll, and it most certainly doesn't mean this forum would be one hell of a lot better off if you were just plain banned. Or if you grew the hell up. Either way, I don't much care."

If you'd grown the hell up I'd not have trolled you in the first place. But you're a troll. One who tries to use logic but falls to fallacy. One who has demonstrated a little knowledge of physics and biology, but not much. One who can't spell simple words like 'right' even though you have a spell checker. One who attacks the opposition instead of the argument. You act like a teenager going through puberty. I'll treat you like one until you desist. Or leave. I'll be happy either way.

You'll also note that I've not suggested you get banned once. Because I have fun making fools of idiots like yourself.

"Okay, so could you kindly do that again?" No. It's already in this topic twice. Your failure to see it the second time, in combination with your refusal to act like a decent human being even after I made an effort to tone down my hostility, is mere proof that you're a troll. Find it yourself. "You really are helping me reach the conclusion that you're a troll and that this website would be much better off if perhaps you were banned from using it. Is there a moderator that could be contacted to help make that happen?" Don't be too surprised when I don't go anywhere, and you get banned for trolling.

In addition to being a troll, you're also a pathological liar.

All I've said, and all you've taken issue with, is my saying that I felt / think / believe that it would be better if the people engaging in these debates were able to read the texts in their original languages AND that they understood the religions they are debating.

That's it.

And you cannot, in any fair reading, distort that to mean I think ANYONE AT ALL is stupid, ignorant, etc. The FACT that several of the questions are based on distorted translations of source texts, as well as projections of the writers beliefs about what a deity that is "omnipotent" or "omnipresent" or most of the other projections is sufficient reason to state that as a desire on my part.

All you're doing is engaging in "trolling", in the classic sense -- you think that if you keep attacking me I'm just going to go away. And at some point, I may well do that. But it doesn't stop you from being a troll, and it most certainly doesn't mean this forum would be one hell of a lot better off if you were just plain banned. Or if you grew the hell up. Either way, I don't much care.

Unfortunately it gets into argument over the language the books were written in by their respective desert tribal society. Where one word can have several meanings, you end up arguing over the meaning of one line for ages.

It seems kind of pointless when the entire scrolls can be safely discarded. Although don't get me wrong, I understand that Jews are encouraged to read, understand, and be able to argue their sacred? law texts. I just don't see a point, because every other religion in the world has their own laws they went by or still go by today.

Congratulations though on working diligently to try and read into what a barbaric tribal society wrote a few thousand years ago. I consider it as valid as reading tea leaves, though. It is a wasted effort, like theology.

... in answer to your question I simply read the books of the Old testament, in addition I even provided you with scripture references that you could have easily checked yourself if you doubted me. If you choose to reject your own bible as a source of historical record why does that make me an anti-semite ?

"I found nothing grand in the history of the Jewsnor in the morals inculcated in the Pentateuch. I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of women." Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902) pioneer in the fight for women's rights.

"Knowledge and history are the enemies of religion." Napoleon Bonaparte -"Maxims" (1769-1821)

Sorry to pop back in, but accusing me of relying upon faulty ( racist ) sources is bull shit . So much for any sense of good will between us. End of Rant.

I'll answer one of your complaints about Jewish law, since it is one of the more common, given certain historical facts.

"Slavery" in Judaism was much closer to what was known as "Indentured Servitude". In it, a person was sold, including sold by themselves, to a person for a period of time. During that period of time they were obligated to work for their owner. The owner, in exchange, was responsible for all of their material needs.

They COULD NOT, under Jewish law, be mistreated the way they were in Chattel Slavery. They had to be fed, and they had to be given the same day off that Jews were (and are) required to take off. At the end of their period of servitude, they were freed -- with the requirement that they be given enough money or property to get a start in life.

What's happened with "slavery" is that it is either compared to ancient slavery practices, such as Roman slavery, or to more modern slavery practices, such as the African Slave Trade. Of the ancient cultures, Jewish slaves had the most rights of any group I've found. It wasn't uncommon for Jewish slaves to refuse to leave their master's house, and the Torah provides a process by which a slave can request to stay. Contrast this with the historically verified treatment of slaves by other Fertile Crescent cultures of that era (1500 BCE) and Jewish slavery is significantly better.

Why even have "slavery"? Because the term "slavery" applies to a wide range of practices in ancient cultures, including indentured servitude, apprenticeships, being a household servant for room and board, and so forth. The Hebrew term for "slave" doesn't mean what we think of it as meaning in English. Of the 800 instances of the word use for "slave", the vast majority -- 767 are translated in the KJV as "servant".

Another area in which Jews are attacked for "slavery" is the incorrect statement that Jews somehow dominated the African Slave trade. This is why I asked if you get your material from anti-Semetic websites -- that and capital punishment are two of the common themes (along with killing Christian babies for various reasons).

Most of the nations that were active in the African Slave trade were hostile to Jews to the point that Jews were given two choices in those countries -- become Christians or become dead. A large amount of the funding of Spain's exploration in the Americas was stolen wealth from Jews, and then later from Moslems, as both religious groups were driven from the country. Portugal, which was an early colonial power, expelled Jews and Muslims a few years later, and Jews and Muslims were chased from Europe.

To give you an idea of the difference, consider the verse in your signature. It isn't referring to "food", like, I'm going out for coffee and a snack shortly, and that is "food". It refers to the food that is given to priests as the tithe, which under Jewish law may ONLY BE EATEN BY A PRIEST OR HIS HOUSEHOLD. I, as a garden variety Bat Yisrael ("daughter of Israel&quot am not permitted to eat that food. I'm a freakin' Jew, and this priest's slave gets to eat what is forbidden for me to eat. THAT is how completely wrong you are about slavery in Judaism. If you're "just" a servant, like I hire you to fix my roof or whatever, YOU don't get to eat the "holy things". But if you're my "slave", you do. So, the very verse you quote proves that "slaves" had higher status under Jewish law than the hired help.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

"But it doesn't stop you from being a troll, and it most certainly doesn't mean this forum would be one hell of a lot better off if you were just plain banned. Or if you grew the hell up. Either way, I don't much care." If you'd grown the hell up I'd not have trolled you in the first place. But you're a troll. One who tries to use logic but falls to fallacy. One who has demonstrated a little knowledge of physics and biology, but not much. One who can't spell simple words like 'right' even though you have a spell checker. One who attacks the opposition instead of the argument. You act like a teenager going through puberty. I'll treat you like one until you desist. Or leave. I'll be happy either way. You'll also note that I've not suggested you get banned once. Because I have fun making fools of idiots like yourself.

Now that you've admitted to being a troll, I'll be sure to refer you to the mods first chance I get.

As for using "write" / "right", "see" / "sea" and other words that sound alike, I type at around 10 key strokes per second. I make mistakes. But you, sir, are an admitted troll and that was not a mistake on my part.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

"Now that you've admitted to being a troll, I'll be sure to refer you to the mods first chance I get.As for using "write" / "right", "see" / "sea" and other words that sound alike, I type at around 10 key strokes per second. I make mistakes. But you, sir, are an admitted troll and that was not a mistake on my part."

Have fun with your delusion that my trolling of you makes me a troll period. Just another example of your poor grasp of logic, and further evidence that I'm more truthful than yourself.

"Now that you've admitted to being a troll, I'll be sure to refer you to the mods first chance I get.As for using "write" / "right", "see" / "sea" and other words that sound alike, I type at around 10 key strokes per second. I make mistakes. But you, sir, are an admitted troll and that was not a mistake on my part." Have fun with your delusion that my trolling of you makes me a troll period. Just another example of your poor grasp of logic, and further evidence that I'm more truthful than yourself.

"Trolling" is what makes people "trolls".

As I said, whenever I get some free time and kind find out how the mods work on this board (or if someone would like to provide me with a clue), I'll point at this thread, your conduct, and strongly suggest you be banned.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

You even accused ProzacDeathWish of antisemitism simply for arguing your history, and came pretty close to accusing me of the same a few pages back. Everyone who argues against you must be a jew hater!
You'll just be calling attention to your own poor behaviour.

""Trolling" is what makes people "trolls"." So you're a troll. You even accused ProzacDeathWish of antisemitism simply for arguing your history, and came pretty close to accusing me of the same a few pages back. Everyone who argues against you must be a jew hater! You'll just be calling attention to your own poor behaviour.

Thanks for the reply. I've read it and completely disagree with it.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."

That sounds fine. If you have time after lunch, I am interested in this and the next post I made. Thanks!

" I get that you can make the belief system about action and not theology, but obviously there is a supernatural component at some level...so would you label yourself as a secular Jew, or are there supernatural/mystical claims about Jewish history or modern belief that you would stand up for?

Is your lack of a definition a core Jewish doctrine, or is it specific to you or a sub-category of Judiasm?"

For me, it's also about not getting into all the "definition" wars and what do terms like "omnipresent" mean.

There is Rambam's 13 Principles of Faith, but it just gets abused in discussions like this.

Let me re-phrase then. Are there any supernatural (as the term supernatural is commonly understood) parts of your belief, or are you purely a secular 'believer' who likes the religion for the secular aspects?

I forgot to subscribe to this thread so I never got an update saying that you had responded, please forgive the delay.

“Good news -- most of what you wrote is easily dismissed.”

Bad news – you failed to respond to most all of it. (And it’s been a while now)

If even one of my points are valid then you have a significant problem on your hands. I will not argue Hebrew with you because I do not know the language. In my defense I am going on the testimony of people who have recognized education in Biblical Hebrew.

For the record do you have any formal training in Biblical Hebrew or is it more modern?

Please answer the other grammatical points though.

For the record, I do not respect the KJV of the Bible nearly enough for you to make appeals to it.

So… are you an orthodox Jew or a reformed Jew or another?

The seriousness of accepting Yeshua (Jesus for those of you who are unaware) as Messiah is incredible… Right after Yeshua explained that He was God He said that if you do not believe that ‘I am He’ (a title for Yahweh in the Tanakh) then you will die in your sin. The Tanakh (Old Testament) speaks of Hell as well, so I’m sorry your Rabbi has not explained that:

Daniel 12:2 describes the duration of hell: "Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

Isaiah 66:24: "And they will go out and look upon the dead bodies of those who rebelled against me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind."

Isaiah 33:10-14: "Now I will arise," says the LORD, "now I will lift myself up; now I will be exalted. You conceive chaff; you give birth to stubble; your breath is a fire that will consume you.And the peoples will be as if burned to lime, like thorns cut down, that are burned in the fire."

Hear, you who are far off, what I have done; and you who are near, acknowledge my might.The sinners in Zion are afraid; trembling has seized the godless:"Who among us can dwell with the consuming fire? Who among us can dwell with everlasting burnings?"

----

Please consider this:

It seems as if the Jewish faith has arbitrarily replaced the historical Yom Kippur with Mitzvah which goes against what God said in Leviticus 16:

"And it shall be a statute for ever unto you: in the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, ye shall afflict your souls, and shall do no manner of work, the home-born, or the stranger that sojourneth among you.

For on this day shall atonement be made for you, to cleanse you; from all your sins shall ye be clean before HaShem.

It is a sabbath of solemn rest unto you, and ye shall afflict your souls; it is a statute for ever.

And the priest, who shall be anointed and who shall be consecrated to be priest in his father's stead, shall make the atonement, and shall put on the linen garments, even the holy garments.

And he shall make atonement for the most holy place, and he shall make atonement for the tent of meeting and for the altar; and he shall make atonement for the priests and for all the people of the assembly.

And this shall be an everlasting statute unto you, to make atonement for the children of Israel because of all their sins once in the year.' And he did as HaShem commanded Moses."

If you are not currently making blood atonement then you are living in your sin and will be subject to the wrath of God when you die…

God is holy and just, He cannot allow sinful men and women to escape without paying for their sin. When you sin, you offend a God who is without limits, without end. They only just punishment is also an everlasting punishment

“Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst formed the earth and the world,even from everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God.”. – Psalm 90:2

The same Hebrew word is used for everlasting in both passages. The Day of Atonement is everlasting in the same sense that God Himself is everlasting. If you say that there could be and end for Yom Kippur then you must also admit that God lied. He used the same word to describe His nature as He did to mandate the Day of Atonement.

God also promised us a new covenant, and that new covenant began with the Lord Jesus Christ 2000 years ago… Only through His atoning sacrifice can we be washed clean of our sins, you cannot do it by keeping the law:

"All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags; we all shrivel up like a leaf, and like the wind our sins sweep us away." – Isaiah 64:6

We cannot uphold the law, and if we are not forgiven our sins though atonement we will die in them and depart into everlasting punishment as a result

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.

The seriousness of accepting Yeshua (Jesus for those of you who are unaware) as Messiah is incredible… Right after Yeshua explained that He was God He said that if you do not believe that ‘I am He’ (a title for Yahweh in the Tanakh) then you will die in your sin.

Bring your utterly unprovens crashing down. Did jesus ever exist? Is there any serious proof of his life outside of the NT? There's simply none. No proof he rose from the dead and no proof he was even born. Unless you, eXni, can provide it.

Please give me a single sensible reference outside the NT for Jesus having existed. Don't converse with me or anything - I know you've got a lot of people to respond to and I appreciate your fortitude in juggling wolves - just give me one reference. I have sought and behold, I have not found.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

Please give me a single sensible reference outside the NT for Jesus having existed. Don't converse with me or anything - I know you've got a lot of people to respond to and I appreciate your fortitude in juggling wolves - just give me one reference. I have sought and behold, I have not found.

I appreciate your concern and I would like to answer your question. Forgive the delay on the answer, be we do have something that is logically prior to address. When you say 'sensible reference' what do you mean by that?

Can you provide me with an example of a sensible reference for something else you accept so I know what I'm working with?

Thanks

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.

Walking on the surface of the moon, a study that shows viruses and bacteria evolving in the lab by a process of constant mutation allowing them over time to develop resistance to antibiotics.

Failing that, is there anything clear in non-biblical historical texts that shows jesus lived? Let's leave out josephus and look at the other sources. Even just a power bill the romans sent Jesus or something.

Anything that proves that beyond normal question he lived.

I struggle with accepting that the gospels, which were written after his alleged death and rely on each other for facts, can be used as verification for anything jesus said, much less did. I don't accept normal historical method because jesus was

magic. This isn't just some normal guy we're talking about. The usual scraps of references normally acceptable can't seriously be used to show jesus beamed up to heaven, descended to hell, rose from death, walked on water.

Mark says jesus was a man, matthew and luke say he was a demigod and only John (who was on paote) claims he was actually god. John is the least trustworthy of all these sources and the youngest - John dates from about 140AD.

Additionally the first time these gospels are mentioned as existing is not until 190AD and the oldest NT, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the 4th century and is heavily corrected, with whole sentences being added. The CS has its books in a different

order as well as including books that aren't in the modern NT.

Outside the NT, I've read the little snippets in Corneluis Tacitus who wrote long after Jesus' alleged death, as well as Suetonius' reference to chrestus. These are the only 2 historians of that time who mention anything about Jesus and it's mighty oblique.

Look - Julius Caesar actually wrote books himself and I've got them sitting at home on my bookshelves. We have coins showing his face from the period and busts of his head and he wasn't the son of god, just some politician.

I know we will not convince each other either way but I would be keen to get at the historical source of your belief.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

“Walking on the surface of the moon, a study that shows viruses and bacteria evolving in the lab by a process of constant mutation allowing them over time to develop resistance to antibiotics.”

Please explain… You have actually walked on the moon? You have actually conducted lab experiments and have monitored the genetic changes of bacteria?

Or are you also going on second-hand testimony that you accept on faith? We seem to be in the same boat here. I accept the Bible as being self-evidently true. I do not ask you to hold that same position, but I do ask that you at least remain consistent in your criticism. If you accept second-hand testimony for one thing and not another then you are a hypocrite.

I would like to mention that there are very few actual historians who deny that Jesus lived. You can refuse to believe that He is God in the flesh, but it’s rather foolish to think the man never lived.

Do you have a way to prove that John was on peyote?

“The CS has its books in a different order as well as including books that aren't in the modern NT.”

Well, I wouldn’t lose any sleep about the order of the books, the New Testament as we know it today is in order based upon book length and various other factors. As for other books, Gospel accounts, etc. I would simply remind you that many books that I’ve already rejected from the Catholic apocrypha are in there as well. Just because we find an old codex with extra books doesn’t actually mean those extra books are legit in any way. The fact that we have so few manuscripts for these extra-Biblical books is a primary reason for rejecting them I think.

“I know we will not convince each other either way but I would be keen to get at the historical source of your belief.”

The historical source of my belief is the Bible as a self-evidently factual account of history, it’s always a take it or leave it statement.

Take care.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.

Why was it titled "Questions about God?" When the questions are clearly about Jesus Christ existense and the validity of the bible.

You are missing a large segment of believers by nit-picking segments of the bible that make no sense. You also underestimate your opposition if you think a Christian needs to believe every word in the bible to maintain their faith.

“Walking on the surface of the moon, a study that shows viruses and bacteria evolving in the lab by a process of constant mutation allowing them over time to develop resistance to antibiotics.”

Please explain… You have actually walked on the moon? You have actually conducted lab experiments and have monitored the genetic changes of bacteria?

Or are you also going on second-hand testimony that you accept on faith? We seem to be in the same boat here. I accept the Bible as being self-evidently true. I do not ask you to hold that same position, but I do ask that you at least remain consistent in your criticism. If you accept second-hand testimony for one thing and not another then you are a hypocrite.

Are you telling me I have to have walked on the moon or conducted lab tests myself in order to successfully argue for proper reproducible proof, or be relegated to the level of a person who believes in an invisible god because an unprovable book says there's one? You say that peer-reviewed lab evidence can be directly compared with the claims of the bible. Now I really have heard everything.

But how about this. If I wanted to, and could afford to, I could mount a mission to the moon and walk there. I could go into a lab and see these experiments. You, however, cannot see any miracles, cannot see jesus rising from death. You have no evidence whatever of heaven or hell or anything else in the bible. Now - that's faith. Believing things that have zero supporting evidence. Don't try to say ordinary faith and religious faith are the same thing. They are clearly not.

I don't accept the claim of some historians that even if not god, jesus was a person. I don't believe jesus of nazareth lived. The historical method is flawed when used to prove the existence of magic jesus. If jesus was not magic then there's a good case to make that the other claims about him are spurious as well. The NT is highly contestable book - it's sources unknown its authors unknown and its accuracy and intention open to intense question.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck

I read Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion". It was a very well-written book until he made comments that suggested "and since God doesn't exist, that's all the more reason not to believe."

I've also read Lee Strobel. He started as an atheist looking for the truth - and he found God. Through factual analysis and an open mind to the truth, he found God. He set out to DISPROVE God.

Now what seems more right? That both theists and atheists keep their hard heads butting against each other until one gives way? Or to come to a reasonable explanation to the many difficult questions posed? Your statement isn't "I don't think Jesus existed." It's "I don't accept [it]". Whether it's the truth or not, you've come to the full conclusion that you won't budge. So what's the point in discussing anything with you? Are you even looking for a Christian's explanations to your questions, or are you looking to convert Christians, or are you just looking to argue?

See, this is exactly why I feel somewhat out of place here. While I'm not an atheist (yet), I also don't believe practically any of the nonsense that these questions are about, so I don't think they're worth thinking about or trying to answer. The answers that I do have are mostly based on mystical sorts of things and suspicions I have about phenomena I can't prove. In other words, not likely to hold up in a debate moderated by the Little Rascals. It's a bit frustrating...

I've also read Lee Strobel. He started as an atheist looking for the truth - and he found God. Through factual analysis and an open mind to the truth, he found God. He set out to DISPROVE God.

I'm a little skeptical of this. What I think he found was the realization that writing apologetics for the unwashed and gullible christian masses is not only easier than being a real journalist, but also much more profitable.

4. When the believer gets to Heaven, how can Heaven be utter bliss when people they love and care about are burning in Hell ? - The Infidel Guy - [Note: Some say God erases your memories of them, but if God erases your memory, you as Mr. Joe /Jane Smoe ceases to exist.]

The Bible never calls heaven utter bliss. Common misconception though. What it does say is that God will wipe every tear from our eyes. In short we will have personal attention from the perfect conforter for all of eternity.

If God doesn't do things the way you think they should be done maybe you should entertain the idea that it's you who doesn't understand.

To answer question four ( the list is incredibly long and heaven and hell seems to be a hot subject)

Now there are many heaven and hell theories that exist in modern catholic philosophy, however, the majority of christian sects in america hold the notion expressed in question four: That you must believe in Jesus christ to live in eternal bliss and happiness in heaven, and if you do not then you will burn in eternal suffering in hell. The ever so popular turn or burn belief is absolutely volatile yet it is cherished dearly by believers, it is a concept that I have been fighting against for many years now. There are a couple of theories pertaining heaven and hell that seem more reasonable:

What if heaven and hell were notions that correlate directly to our realities and our experience on earth?

For instance, if one lived the life of complete sacrifice for thier fellow man, disregarded thier personal pleasures, and followed the law of true love for every human regardless of appearance or belief, then that individual would surely be in heaven. For they would love no matter the circumstance, they would not judge or look down upon any human, they would live in humility to the grandness of reality. I would argue that this person would be in heaven.

On the other hand, if one lived thier life soley for their own personal pleasures, for their own designs, disregarding the other individuals that inhabbit thier reality, than they would certainly live in hell. For they would not know love, save for self love, they would not know companionship, or any other good things that come from the law of love. This individual would live in hell.

In this theory, the afterlife is not present becuase their is no proof of a life after death.

It is appaling that modern protestant christian sects do not dig more deeply into the prospects of heaven and hell, instead they rely on ancient texts written by a more simple people.

To answer question four ( the list is incredibly long and heaven and hell seems to be a hot subject)

Now there are many heaven and hell theories that exist in modern catholic philosophy, however, the majority of christian sects in america hold the notion expressed in question four: That you must believe in Jesus christ to live in eternal bliss and happiness in heaven, and if you do not then you will burn in eternal suffering in hell. The ever so popular turn or burn belief is absolutely volatile yet it is cherished dearly by believers, it is a concept that I have been fighting against for many years now. There are a couple of theories pertaining heaven and hell that seem more reasonable:

What if heaven and hell were notions that correlate directly to our realities and our experience on earth?

For instance, if one lived the life of complete sacrifice for thier fellow man, disregarded thier personal pleasures, and followed the law of true love for every human regardless of appearance or belief, then that individual would surely be in heaven. For they would love no matter the circumstance, they would not judge or look down upon any human, they would live in humility to the grandness of reality. I would argue that this person would be in heaven.

On the other hand, if one lived thier life soley for their own personal pleasures, for their own designs, disregarding the other individuals that inhabbit thier reality, than they would certainly live in hell. For they would not know love, save for self love, they would not know companionship, or any other good things that come from the law of love. This individual would live in hell.

In this theory, the afterlife is not present becuase their is no proof of a life after death.

It is appaling that modern protestant christian sects do not dig more deeply into the prospects of heaven and hell, instead they rely on ancient texts written by a more simple people.

Why would selfless acts cause heaven and selfish acts cause hell? Are you talking about our life experience relating to heaven or hell, or some metaphysical idea lurking behind our lives...some sort of karma thing?

I ask because selfess behavior does not always bring happiness and selfish behavior does not always bring pain. Quite the opposite actually...plenty of incredibally selfish people are terribly happy, and plenty of good people are totally miserable.

And that is not even getting into the reality that our happiness often has no relation to our own actions. We are the victim of circumstance and chance as often as anything else.

I find it incredibly ironic given your user name that your post is philosophically bankrupt in many ways. Let me show you.

First, your general appeal to heaven and hell is fallacious given your outright rejection of the very Scriptures that have revealed the concept to begin with…

Next, you reveal a failure to even understand what Christians believe. Christians care nothing of what appears to non-believers as the ‘more reasonable’ concept. Why is this? Because apart from God, all things cease to be reasonable. Reason exists as a reflection of God’s perfectly rational nature.

For your sake, just know that true Christians are slaves to the Word of God regardless of its perceived rationality. We understand that sin darkens our understanding in many ways so that which may ‘appear’ to be irrational (IE: The Trinity) is actually perfectly rational eternally speaking. There is no question, we WILL fail to comprehend God in His fullness while we have a sinful nature, but thankfully we are not required to comprehend the fullness of God. We are only expected to apprehend what is given to us in Scripture. I can easily apprehend that God is timeless and exists in three persons, but I cannot even start to comprehend those ideas from my limited perspective within this significantly limited universe.

That being said, your opinion that you have a more rational concept of hell is totally irrelevant to me. The bible clearly teaches a fire and brimstone teaching of hell, ergo it is Truth.

The irony here is that you are doing exactly what Satan did to cause sin in the beginning. You would say ‘has God really said this about hell?’

The message that is communicated through the pages of Scripture are the very words of the God that created us, I will not question it because a sinner thinks it’s not as rational as his feeble attempt to rationalize it.

Peace.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.

Next, you reveal a failure to even understand what Christians believe. Christians care nothing of what appears to non-believers as the ‘more reasonable’ concept. Why is this? Because apart from God, all things cease to be reasonable. Reason exists as a reflection of God’s perfectly rational nature.

This is why I dislike fundamentalism. When a fundie admits point blank that they purposefully abandoned reason for superstition, what can you say? At that point all you can do is help other people see how silly it is, and fight to make sure they are not in a position to make any decisions that harm society.

This is why I dislike fundamentalism. When a fundie admits point blank that they purposefully abandoned reason for superstition, what can you say? At that point all you can do is help other people see how silly it is, and fight to make sure they are not in a position to make any decisions that harm society.

mell,

We do not abandon reason for superstition. I have no doubt that you see it that way, but again, your opinion is utterly worthless to me. You have no authority to base your claim on other than your subjective opinion. And for the record, there is no such thing as a non-fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalism is a person who embraces the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, without them you're not actually a Christian. Just FYI.

You worship the false god of your own authority and the almighty reason of man. You are an idolator sir. Repent and serve the one True God revealed to us in Scripture.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.

This is why I dislike fundamentalism. When a fundie admits point blank that they purposefully abandoned reason for superstition, what can you say? At that point all you can do is help other people see how silly it is, and fight to make sure they are not in a position to make any decisions that harm society.

mell,

We do not abandon reason for superstition. I have no doubt that you see it that way, but again, your opinion is utterly worthless to me. You have no authority to base your claim on other than your subjective opinion. And for the record, there is no such thing as a non-fundamentalist Christian. Fundamentalism is a person who embraces the fundamental truths of the Christian faith, without them you're not actually a Christian. Just FYI.

You worship the false god of your own authority and the almighty reason of man. You are an idolator sir. Repent and serve the one True God revealed to us in Scripture.

Uh-huh. "Everyone who doesn't agree with me about magic is a filthy heathen, because my books says so, and my book is right because my book says it is right. Repent heretic or my magic friend will zap you after you die!"

Every single day I am reminded how lucky I am to have escaped your brand of crazy.

(Why would selfless acts cause heaven and selfish acts cause hell? Are you talking about our life experience relating to heaven or hell, or some metaphysical idea lurking behind our lives...some sort of karma thing?

I ask because selfess behavior does not always bring happiness and selfish behavior does not always bring pain. Quite the opposite actually...plenty of incredibally selfish people are terribly happy, and plenty of good people are totally miserable.

And that is not even getting into the reality that our happiness often has no relation to our own actions. We are the victim of circumstance and chance as often as anything else.)- maleestad

The theory I presented about heaven and hell is just a theory, like all things, however I believe it is worth exploring just for the fact that it is interesting. You bring up many good points that lead deeper into the discussion and I am happy you did so. Now, let us begin by answering the first question expressed. Does the theory pertain to our life experience or to a metaphysical idea behind our lives, like karma? The theory pertains directly to our life experience. Meaning that heaven and hell are conditions that we can place ourselves in by the way in which we live our lives. Now, you asked this becuase selfless behavior does not always bring happiness and selfish behavior does not always bring pain. I believe we must delve into what happiness really is. In modern society happiness may include things like having alot of money, or an abundance of material objects, I argue that what we believe happiness to be is not really being happy at all. Socrates said that " He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature." and " Luxury is artificial poverty." Now, the selfless person who acts solely for the benefit of others is content no matter what he has, therefore he is the happiest of all individuals, thus putting his life in a heaven like reality. Now Socrates also said that " From the deepest desires comes the deadliest hate." Therefore, the individual who lives his life solely for his own pleasures, pleasing none save himself, is guilded by hate, and will have the most empty of all existences, thus putting themselves in a hell like reality. The theory, even if it is incorrect, which it most likely is, like all theories, is at the least intersting and thought provoking. Thank you for your interest and honest perception of my post, unlike the theist who posted afterward, who instead of looking at the theory with honest wonder, just showed everyone how extreme some believers actually are.

The theory I presented about heaven and hell is just a theory, like all things, however I believe it is worth exploring just for the fact that it is interesting. You bring up many good points that lead deeper into the discussion and I am happy you did so. Now, let us begin by answering the first question expressed. Does the theory pertain to our life experience or to a metaphysical idea behind our lives, like karma? The theory pertains directly to our life experience. Meaning that heaven and hell are conditions that we can place ourselves in by the way in which we live our lives. Now, you asked this because selfless behavior does not always bring happiness and selfish behavior does not always bring pain. I believe we must delve into what happiness really is. In modern society happiness may include things like having alot of money, or an abundance of material objects, I argue that what we believe happiness to be is not really being happy at all. Socrates said that " He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature." and " Luxury is artificial poverty." Now, the selfless person who acts solely for the benefit of others is content no matter what he has, therefore he is the happiest of all individuals, thus putting his life in a heaven like reality. Now Socrates also said that " From the deepest desires comes the deadliest hate." Therefore, the individual who lives his life solely for his own pleasures, pleasing none save himself, is guilded by hate, and will have the most empty of all existences, thus putting themselves in a hell like reality. The theory, even if it is incorrect, which it most likely is, like all theories, is at the least intersting and thought provoking. Thank you for your interest and honest perception of my post, unlike the theist who posted afterward, who instead of looking at the theory with honest wonder, just showed everyone how extreme some believers actually are.

I think happiness is happiness. Socrates point is valid in that you will find happiness more easily if you are content with less...but that does not have anything to do with your point does it? A bum might be happier than a billionaire, but that happiness might have come from stealing a nice pair of shoes, and the billionaire might be depressed even though he spends his fortune on philanthropy. I don't see any reason to link happiness and 'goodness' with any kind of hard rule. I would agree that humans tend to be happiest when the collective spends an appropriate amount of time working for the greater good, but I think eliminating selfishness (as classically understood, I don't really believe in unselfish behavior) would have a negative impact on subjective happiness.

That is why I asked about real vs. metaphysical...real happiness is not subject to hard and fast rules. A sociopath can be happy while he cuts on someone, and I doubt everyone who sacrifices their lives for another spends their last moments in a blissful state.

To boil it down, I would respond to this:

philo wrote:

I believe we must delve into what happiness really is.

With this: Happiness is subjective. The philosophy we are discussing sounds great and noble, but I think it is naive.

The bible is a text written by a number of authors over a period of time, just like the Koran and many other religous books written in history. We cannot say that every word written in the bible is completely one hundred percent the word of God, only becuase the bible says so. This is irrational, if I told you that the Koran was the written word of God becuase it said so you would tell me that I was wrong. Detach yourself from dogma. Become the rational being God intended you to be. The bible must be taken in context, in order to say that something inside the text is valid we must look at when it was written, and by whom it was written, and we must examine the idea itself to make sure it is logical. Any historian will tell you that anything that happened in the past is up to interpretation, therefore how can you as a man say that the author meant this or that. Would it not take reason to make such assumptions? Reason is the only thing we have. Also, we must remember that the text has been translated time and time again, meaning that exact words and phrases could have been switched around in translation. Like you said, reason exists as a reflection of Gods perfectly rational nature. Which means that men posses a part of Gods nature within us which is rationality. God wants us to come to our faith through reason.

When Jesus asked Peter " Who do you say that I am?", Jesus himself trusts the rational power of Peter to come to the right conclusion. Jesus trusts the rational mind of man becuase he knew that man possesed a part of God in thier rationality.

Therefore, the bible cannot be taken literally as you want it to be. It must be taken in context and we must integrate our rational minds in the interpretation of the text.

If we do not, then we are no better than the other religions who hold thier religous texts as absolutely true.

The bible is a text written by a number of authors over a period of time, just like the Koran and many other religous books written in history. We cannot say that every word written in the bible is completely one hundred percent the word of God, only becuase the bible says so. This is irrational, if I told you that the Koran was the written word of God becuase it said so you would tell me that I was wrong. Detach yourself from dogma. Become the rational being God intended you to be. The bible must be taken in context, in order to say that something inside the text is valid we must look at when it was written, and by whom it was written, and we must examine the idea itself to make sure it is logical. Any historian will tell you that anything that happened in the past is up to interpretation, therefore how can you as a man say that the author meant this or that. Would it not take reason to make such assumptions? Reason is the only thing we have. Also, we must remember that the text has been translated time and time again, meaning that exact words and phrases could have been switched around in translation. Like you said, reason exists as a reflection of Gods perfectly rational nature. Which means that men posses a part of Gods nature within us which is rationality. God wants us to come to our faith through reason.

When Jesus asked Peter " Who do you say that I am?", Jesus himself trusts the rational power of Peter to come to the right conclusion. Jesus trusts the rational mind of man becuase he knew that man possesed a part of God in thier rationality.

Therefore, the bible cannot be taken literally as you want it to be. It must be taken in context and we must integrate our rational minds in the interpretation of the text.

If we do not, then we are no better than the other religions who hold thier religous texts as absolutely true.

Who were you writing this to?

To quote someone type, "[ quote=blahblah ]" without spaces, and to close the quote type, "[ /quote ]" without spaces.= so it looks like this:

I have never and will never be asking you to approve my use of the Word of God to expose your ignorance of the Christian faith. As it stands, you are an enemy of God who is literally hell-bent on suppressing the Truth because your father is the devil. What is Truth? The Word of God is Truth. It is not just true, the Word of God is Truth itself. You have already failed to respond to my display of your philosophical ignorance in lieu of attacking the Word of God. Imagine that, an agenda.

Your bitterness is obvious, you hate God, it's that simple. You are a rebel sinner and unless you repent you will perish.

Out of a care for your soul I will ignore you now so that God will not hold you accountable for rejecting even more of His Truth. This is me shaking of the dust from my feet and refusing to throw my pearls before swine. You clearly love the mud and enjoy wallowing in it. May God have mercy on you.

Speaking Truth in love,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ..." - Paul to the Corinthians
------
Christian | Amaterialist | Supernaturalist | Anti-Crypto-Theist
------
Facts do not speak for themselves.

I have never and will never be asking you to approve my use of the Word of God to expose your ignorance of the Christian faith. As it stands, you are an enemy of God who is literally hell-bent on suppressing the Truth because your father is the devil. What is Truth? The Word of God is Truth. It is not just true, the Word of God is Truth itself. You have already failed to respond to my display of your philosophical ignorance in lieu of attacking the Word of God. Imagine that, an agenda.

Your bitterness is obvious, you hate God, it's that simple. You are a rebel sinner and unless you repent you will perish.

Out of a care for your soul I will ignore you now so that God will not hold you accountable for rejecting even more of His Truth. This is me shaking of the dust from my feet and refusing to throw my pearls before swine. You clearly love the mud and enjoy wallowing in it. May God have mercy on you.

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers. 1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

One at a time. The answer to the first one is pretty obvious, I think. They didn't want to. For the same reason that if the Bible actually said Jesus would physically return, which it doesn't by the way, the story of Jesus would only be repeated. The modern day religious leaders in Christendom would reject him just as the Jewish religious leaders of his time did. Religion. That is what it does.

On a more practical note the primary reason for the Jews not accepting Jesus, aside from the religious one mentioned above, was that they misunderstood him as being in a literal sense a messiah just as David had been. An earthly king who would bring them to victory over their oppressors. That is what they wanted in a messiah and he wasn't going to give them that.

List of questions about God, religion and the supernatural have been compiled by IG over the years as well as some interesting ones by readers. 1. If Jesus fulfilled all the OT prophecies so well, why didn't the Jews recognize him as the messiah? - Francois Tremblay

One at a time. The answer to the first one is pretty obvious, I think. They didn't want to. For the same reason that if the Bible actually said Jesus would physically return, which it doesn't by the way, the story of Jesus would only be repeated. The modern day religious leaders in Christendom would reject him just as the Jewish religious leaders of his time did. Religion. That is what it does.

On a more practical note the primary reason for the Jews not accepting Jesus, aside from the religious one mentioned above, was that they misunderstood him as being in a literal sense a messiah just as David had been. An earthly king who would bring them to victory over their oppressors. That is what they wanted in a messiah and he wasn't going to give them that.

There is that and jesus didn't bring the jews to israel and reign over them, nor built the third temple etc, etc etc.

Shame on those filthy Jews for not understanding their own history, culture, language and prophecy! It must be because God's chosen people *wanted* to deny the pure, holy light of Christ from entering their dark, ignorant souls.

After all, it isn't like they would know anything about the writings of their own ancestors, of the message of their own God.

Shame on those filthy Jews for not understanding their own history, culture, language and prophecy! It must be because God's chosen people *wanted* to deny the pure, holy light of Christ from entering their dark, ignorant souls.

After all, it isn't like they would know anything about the writings of their own ancestors, of the message of their own God.

Shame on those filthy Jews for not understanding their own history, culture, language and prophecy! It must be because God's chosen people *wanted* to deny the pure, holy light of Christ from entering their dark, ignorant souls.

After all, it isn't like they would know anything about the writings of their own ancestors, of the message of their own God.

2 Kings chapter 22.

Shame on those filthy Jews for not understanding their own history, culture, language and prophecy! It must be because God's chosen people *wanted* to deny the pure, holy light of Christ from entering their dark, ignorant souls.

After all, it isn't like they would know anything about the writings of their own ancestors, of the message of their own God.

Shame on those filthy Jews for not understanding their own history, culture, language and prophecy! It must be because God's chosen people *wanted* to deny the pure, holy light of Christ from entering their dark, ignorant souls.

After all, it isn't like they would know anything about the writings of their own ancestors, of the message of their own God.

How many Christians today misinterpret their own Holy Book? They have to right, or there wouldn't be so many different versions of Christianity today.

So why then is it so far fetched to think that Israel did the same? I mean, the OT is full of examples of them going left when God told them to go right. Of course that requires that you believe the OT accounts of Jewish history. If you don't, then why are we having this discussion? Oh, right, to prove Christianity illogical. Gotcha.

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18

Why was it titled "Questions about God?" When the questions are clearly about Jesus Christ existense and the validity of the bible.

You are missing a large segment of believers by nit-picking segments of the bible that make no sense. You also underestimate your opposition if you think a Christian needs to believe every word in the bible to maintain their faith.

If you'll read all the questions of the original post, you'll see that there are tons of questions about God in general, and even from a Muslim perspective.

So the questions are hardly all about Christianity.

The conversation has veered mostly toward Christianity, because Christians are the only ones who have real answers to questions like these, which is why Christians ROCK!!!!!! (and I mean that literally and figuratively)

"For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1Cor 1:18